On 10/06/2009 07:32 PM, CW wrote:
"Chris Friesen" wrote in message

A properly heat-treated screw is about as strong in shear strength as a
nail the same size as the shaft, but is stronger in pull-out.

Why a heat treated screw? Nails are dead soft.

Sorry for the delay...the heat treatment keeps it from being brittle
from work-hardening when the threads are rolled.

Chris

On 10/09/2009 02:39 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.

Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. It will bend.
Do the same to the screw. It will "shear" right off.

That's why I specified "properly heat-treated". The heat treatment
keeps it from being brittle due to work-hardening from rolling the threads.

Just for fun, I tried your experiment with a #10 Spax brand exterior
screw. (Lee Valley carries them.) The screw bent. I then pounded it
back straight and removed it with a power driver.

I then tried it with a #10 "Precision" brand decking screw from Home
Depot. The screw snapped.

Chris

-MIKE- wrote:
dpb wrote:
IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my
original point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger
that a fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?

How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?

The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has
little, if anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a
nail or screw...


How?

Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.

Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. It will
bend. Do the same to the screw. It will "shear" right off.

You're confusing impact strength with shear strength.

J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
dpb wrote:
IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my
original point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger
that a fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?
How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?

The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has
little, if anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a
nail or screw...

How?

Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.

Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. It will
bend. Do the same to the screw. It will "shear" right off.

You're confusing impact strength with shear strength.

I'm not. It relates enough to get the point across.

I've seen the tests, I've sat through the lectures.

bye


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
Huh? Care to take another try?

Do you mean the nail material has an allowable shear stress of
16,000 psi (lbs / sq in) ?


No. I mean it takes 16,000lbs to shear a nail.

Have you seen those tests they do with the giant machines that hold
piece of whatever in one jaw while the other jaw pushes or pulls or
tears the other end. This shear test has both jaws right next to
each other, coplanar, while one jaw moves down, perpendicular to the
length of the nail.


Because the code allowable shear loading (last time I checked) for a
16d common is somewhere in the 150 lb range


I'm guessing that has to do with how much weight is allowed, by code,
to be held by a single nail. That has nothing to do with the shear
strength limit of the nail. If the two were the same, then every
house would collapse before finished.

You and I can exert much more than 150lbs with our bare hands.

A 16d nail has a nominal diameter of .162 inches. That gives an area
of about 0.02 inches.

To get 16,000 pounds out of that area would require steel that could
take a sheer stress of 800,000 psi. This is beyond the range of
even exotic ultra high strength steels, let alone the the cheap junk
that is typically used in modern nails. For a typical mild steel the
shear strength woulde be around 60,000 psi, so multiply that by .02
and you have 1200 pounds.


Shear strength of a 16d nail is 150 pounds

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&gl=us


That means if you hang your tool belt on a nail in the wall, you will break
the nail.

-MIKE- wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
dpb wrote:
IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my
original point that a nail is many, many, many, many times
stronger that a fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?
How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?

The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has
little, if anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a
nail or screw...

How?

Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.

Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. It will
bend. Do the same to the screw. It will "shear" right off.

You're confusing impact strength with shear strength.

I'm not. It relates enough to get the point across.

Yes, you are. You may think otherwise but what you think and what is true
are not necessarily the same. When you hit something with a hammer you are
testing its impact strength--this is exactly the technique that is used in
the laboratory, with the velocity and mass of the hamner and the point of
contact carefully standardized (your experiment does neither). When shear
strength is measured a steady load is applied.

If you know anything about metallurgy you'll know that when you harden steel
you increase its tensile and shear strengths and reduce its impact strength.

When you talk about "shear strength" you are using a technical term which
has a specific meaning, and the test that you describe does not measure that
quantity no matter how mucg you may want it to.

I've seen the tests, I've sat through the lectures.

What tests and what lectures?

On Oct 9, 8:41*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

Shear strength of a 16d nail is 150 pounds

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache...fireserviceslt.....

That means if you hang your tool belt on a nail in the wall, you will break
the nail.

Right...if you're wearing the belt at the time.

R

RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 9, 8:41 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Shear strength of a 16d nail is 150 pounds

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache...fireserviceslt....

That means if you hang your tool belt on a nail in the wall, you will break
the nail.

Right...if you're wearing the belt at the time.

R

And it would still hold you.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Oct 9, 9:36*am, -MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
Huh? * Care to take another try?

Do you mean the nail material has an allowable shear stress of 16,000
psi (lbs / sq in) ?

No. *I mean it takes 16,000lbs to shear a nail.

Have you seen those tests they do with the giant machines that hold
piece of whatever in one jaw while the other jaw pushes or pulls or
tears the other end. *This shear test has both jaws right next to each
other, coplanar, while one jaw moves down, perpendicular to the length
of the nail.

Because the code allowable shear loading (last time I checked) for a
16d common is somewhere in the 150 lb range

I'm guessing that has to do with how much weight is allowed, by code, to
be held by a single nail. *That has nothing to do with the shear
strength limit of the nail. *If the two were the same, then every house
would collapse before finished.

You and I can exertmuchmore than 150lbs with our bare hands.

--

* -MIKE-

* "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
* * *--Elvin Jones *(1927-2004)
* --
*http://mikedrums.com
*
* ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Mike-

I know all about "those giant machines".......I ran a research lab for
nearly 20 years, we had one.

And there is NO WAY a single 16d name can do ANYTHING that involves
16,000 lbs other than be destroyed at a WAY lower number.

You're latest post is mostly nonsense.

cheers
Bob

On Oct 9, 12:32*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
Your point that a common nail is stronger in shear than adrywall
screw is not coming under fire. *It is the 16,000 lbs thing. *

I still swear I've seen that number and it surprised the crap out of me,
too.
I've been looking through some of my textbooks and publications, but
don't have any more time to look.

--

* -MIKE-

* "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
* * *--Elvin Jones *(1927-2004)
* --
*http://mikedrums.com
*
* ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

I still swear I've seen that number and it surprised the crap out of me, too.
I've been looking through some of my textbooks and publications, but
don't have any more time to look.

Mike-

Your recollection is wrong...we all make mistakes.


Your 16,000 lb number is nonsense, please don't continue to quote
unless oyu can cite it.

You can take all the time in the world...you;re not going to find a
shear strength of a 16d nail to be 16,000 lbs...ain't gonna happen.

cheers
Bob

ps I agree that often nails are much stronger than screws and as
Rico noted there are times to use each.

On Oct 9, 5:41*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
Huh? * Care to take another try?

Do you mean the nail material has an allowable shear stress of
16,000 psi (lbs / sq in) ?

No. *I mean it takes 16,000lbs to shear a nail.

Have you seen those tests they do with the giant machines that hold
piece of whatever in one jaw while the other jaw pushes or pulls or
tears the other end. *This shear test has both jaws right next to
each other, coplanar, while one jaw moves down, perpendicular to the
length of the nail.

Because the code allowable shear loading (last time I checked) for a
16d common is somewhere in the 150 lb range

I'm guessing that has to do with how much weight is allowed, by code,
to be held by a single nail. *That has nothing to do with the shear
strength limit of the nail. *If the two were the same, then every
house would collapse before finished.

You and I can exert much more than 150lbs with our bare hands.

A 16d nail has a nominal diameter of .162 inches. *That gives an area
of about 0.02 inches.

To get 16,000 pounds out of that area would require steel that could
take a sheer stress of 800,000 psi. * This is beyond the range of
even exotic ultra high strength steels, let alone the the cheap junk
that is typically used in modern nails. *For a typical mild steel the
shear strength woulde be around 60,000 psi, so multiply that by .02
and you have 1200 pounds.

Shear strength of a 16d nail is 150 pounds

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache...fireserviceslt.....

That means if you hang your tool belt on a nail in the wall, you will break
the nail.

That means if you hang your tool belt on a nail in the wall, you will break the nail.

?????? Your tool belt weighs 150 pounds?

cheers
Bob

On Oct 9, 3:42*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
dpb wrote:
IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my
original point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger
that a fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?
How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?

The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has
little, if anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a
nail or screw...

How?

Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.

Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. *It will
bend. Do the same to the screw. *It will "shear" right off.

You're confusing impact strength with shear strength.

I'm not. *It relates enough to get the point across.

I've seen the tests, I've sat through the lectures.

bye

--

* -MIKE-

* "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
* * *--Elvin Jones *(1927-2004)
* --
*http://mikedrums.com
*
* ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Mike-

If these tests & lectures were involved in process that lead to a
technical degree (physics or engineering)....please let me know so I
can notify your alma mater to begin the "degree recall process".

You have, in the later part of this thread, violated "the first rule
of holes"..........which is "stop digging".

shear & impact tests are used to determine different properties....

btw find that 16,000 lb number yet?


cheers
Bob

fftt wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:36 am, -MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
Huh? Care to take another try?
Do you mean the nail material has an allowable shear stress of 16,000
psi (lbs / sq in) ?
No. I mean it takes 16,000lbs to shear a nail.

Have you seen those tests they do with the giant machines that hold
piece of whatever in one jaw while the other jaw pushes or pulls or
tears the other end. This shear test has both jaws right next to each
other, coplanar, while one jaw moves down, perpendicular to the length
of the nail.

Because the code allowable shear loading (last time I checked) for a
16d common is somewhere in the 150 lb range
I'm guessing that has to do with how much weight is allowed, by code, to
be held by a single nail. That has nothing to do with the shear
strength limit of the nail. If the two were the same, then every house
would collapse before finished.

You and I can exertmuchmore than 150lbs with our bare hands.

Mike-

I know all about "those giant machines".......I ran a research lab for
nearly 20 years, we had one.

And there is NO WAY a single 16d name can do ANYTHING that involves
16,000 lbs other than be destroyed at a WAY lower number.

You're latest post is mostly nonsense.

cheers
Bob


Cool. Any idea what it can take?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

fftt wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:42 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
dpb wrote:
IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my
original point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger
that a fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?
How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?
The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has
little, if anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a
nail or screw...
How?
Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.
Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. It will
bend. Do the same to the screw. It will "shear" right off.
You're confusing impact strength with shear strength.
I'm not. It relates enough to get the point across.

I've seen the tests, I've sat through the lectures.

bye

--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Mike-

If these tests & lectures were involved in process that lead to a
technical degree (physics or engineering)....please let me know so I
can notify your alma mater to begin the "degree recall process".

You have, in the later part of this thread, violated "the first rule
of holes"..........which is "stop digging".

shear & impact tests are used to determine different properties....

btw find that 16,000 lb number yet?


cheers
Bob

Bob, I heard you the first time.
Do you know what the number (lbs) is, since you ran the tests?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

There are fairly rare occasions when the sheer value of a nail is
necessary to know. I was given the number 90# in sheer for a 16d
box nail once when it really did matter, this number was from a
structural engineer who I am sure had quite a safety factor in his
figures. Of course, common nails are higher.

--
______________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)




"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...
fftt wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:36 am, -MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
Huh? Care to take another try?
Do you mean the nail material has an allowable shear stress
of 16,000
psi (lbs / sq in) ?
No. I mean it takes 16,000lbs to shear a nail.

Have you seen those tests they do with the giant machines that
hold
piece of whatever in one jaw while the other jaw pushes or
pulls or
tears the other end. This shear test has both jaws right next
to each
other, coplanar, while one jaw moves down, perpendicular to
the length
of the nail.

Because the code allowable shear loading (last time I
checked) for a
16d common is somewhere in the 150 lb range
I'm guessing that has to do with how much weight is allowed,
by code, to
be held by a single nail. That has nothing to do with the
shear
strength limit of the nail. If the two were the same, then
every house
would collapse before finished.

You and I can exertmuchmore than 150lbs with our bare hands.

Mike-

I know all about "those giant machines".......I ran a research
lab for
nearly 20 years, we had one.

And there is NO WAY a single 16d name can do ANYTHING that
involves
16,000 lbs other than be destroyed at a WAY lower number.

You're latest post is mostly nonsense.

cheers
Bob


Cool. Any idea what it can take?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in
life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Oct 10, 1:18*pm, "DanG" wrote:
There are fairly rare occasions when the sheer value of a nail is
necessary to know. *I was given the number 90# in sheer for a 16d
box nail once when it really did matter, this number was from a
structural engineer who I am sure had quite a safety factor in his
figures. *Of course, common nails are higher.

http://www.mcvicker.com/offtech/smnail.htm

R

On Oct 10, 10:07*am, -MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:42 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
dpb wrote:
IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my
original point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger
that a fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?
How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?
The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has
little, if anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a
nail or screw...
How?
Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.
Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. *It will
bend. Do the same to the screw. *It will "shear" right off.
You're confusing impact strength with shear strength.
I'm not. *It relates enough to get the point across.

I've seen the tests, I've sat through the lectures.

bye

--

* -MIKE-

* "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
* * *--Elvin Jones *(1927-2004)
* --
*http://mikedrums.com
*
* ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Mike-

If these tests & lectures were involved in process that lead to a
technical degree (physics or engineering)....please let me know so I
can notify your alma mater to begin the "degree recall process".

You have, in the later part of this thread, violated "the first rule
of holes"..........which is "stop digging".

shear & impact tests are used to determine different properties....

btw find that 16,000 lb number yet?

cheers
Bob

Bob, I heard you the first time.
Do you know what the number (lbs) is, since you ran the tests?

--

* -MIKE-

* "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
* * *--Elvin Jones *(1927-2004)
* --
*http://mikedrums.com
*
* ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

depends on the loading conditions & assembly

an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?

allowable in timber like ~100lbs

ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs

ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs

cheers
Bob

allowable *in timber like ~100lbs

ultimate load in timber, probably *400lbs

Ok - I'll chime in . . Structural Engineer, with degrees and official
License who has designed many buildings.

the 90# for a 16d box nail is about right on . . to start with.
There's a lot of factors that could increase or decrease that number
by a factor of two or so depending on exactly what's going on and what
kind of loads you are holding up (for example:short duration loads
like wind, multiply by 1.6; hot, wet conditions might be multiplied by
about 0.6 or so)

Steel strength for get's pretty meaningless since it's wood that
always fails in a proper joint, but the minimum steel yield strength
for both nails and wood screw is 70,000 psi to 100,000 psi. Neither
nails or screws are usually heat treated.

Rich K

depends on the loading conditions & assembly

an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?

allowable in timber like ~100lbs

ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs

ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs

cheers
Bob


I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I never was.

I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being cut,
or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.

Is that what that 800 number is?
Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the machine/test.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Richk wrote:
allowable in timber like ~100lbs

ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs

Ok - I'll chime in . . Structural Engineer, with degrees and official
License who has designed many buildings.

the 90# for a 16d box nail is about right on . . to start with.
There's a lot of factors that could increase or decrease that number
by a factor of two or so depending on exactly what's going on and what
kind of loads you are holding up (for example:short duration loads
like wind, multiply by 1.6; hot, wet conditions might be multiplied by
about 0.6 or so)


This was never the issue, nor what I was referring to.
I was speaking of the weight required to shearing off the nail.


Steel strength for get's pretty meaningless since it's wood that
always fails in a proper joint, but the minimum steel yield strength
for both nails and wood screw is 70,000 psi to 100,000 psi.

Can you explain this more?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Richk" wrote:

Ok - I'll chime in . . Structural Engineer, with degrees and official
License who has designed many buildings.

the 90# for a 16d box nail is about right on . . to start with.
There's a lot of factors that could increase or decrease that number
by a factor of two or so depending on exactly what's going on and what
kind of loads you are holding up (for example:short duration loads
like wind, multiply by 1.6; hot, wet conditions might be multiplied by
about 0.6 or so)

Steel strength for get's pretty meaningless since it's wood that
always fails in a proper joint, but the minimum steel yield strength
for both nails and wood screw is 70,000 psi to 100,000 psi. Neither
nails or screws are usually heat treated.

Normal screews are usually not hardened; however, this thread started
somewhere way back when talkung about dry wall screws which are a
different ball game.

SFWIW, also have the shingle issued by the state hanging on the wall.

Lew

On Oct 10, 4:54*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
depends on the loading conditions & assembly

an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?

allowable *in timber like ~100lbs

ultimate load in timber, probably *400lbs

ultimate *load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition */ *alloy; *maybe 800+ lbs

cheers
Bob

I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I never was.

I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being cut,
or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.

Is that what that 800 number is?
Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the machine/test.

--

* -MIKE-

* "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
* * *--Elvin Jones *(1927-2004)
* --
*http://mikedrums.com
*
* ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply



Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? Mounted
in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?

A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress & mutlitply
by .02

But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn mower.

cheers
Bob

cheers
Bob

fftt wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
depends on the loading conditions & assembly
an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
allowable in timber like ~100lbs
ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
cheers
Bob
I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I never was.

I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being cut,
or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.

Is that what that 800 number is?
Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the machine/test.



Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? Mounted
in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?

A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress & mutlitply
by .02

But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn mower.

cheers
Bob


Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
world, but they still do the tests. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Oct 10, 10:03*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
depends on the loading conditions & assembly
an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
allowable *in timber like ~100lbs
ultimate load in timber, probably *400lbs
ultimate *load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition */ *alloy; *maybe 800+ lbs
cheers
Bob
I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I never was.

I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being cut,
or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.

Is that what that 800 number is?
Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the machine/test.

Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? * Mounted
in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?

A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress & mutlitply
by .02

But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn mower.

cheers
Bob

Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
world, but they still do the tests. :-)

--

* -MIKE-

* "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
* * *--Elvin Jones *(1927-2004)
* --
*http://mikedrums.com
*
* ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply


There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real world, but they still do the tests. :-)

Back to your old behavior, I see .....writing nonsense & digging
holes.

The tests are done for a reason, to confirm or determine material
properties. To determine system performance.
Perhaps you could give an example as to one of these "tests".

You pulled a BS number out of your ass (or faulty memory) then
continued to insisted it was right & that it made sense.

You then switched to hoping your number was "close to right" .....at
least in "some" situation.
Even considering the number from the most optimistic & unrealistic
condition ....you're still off by a factor more than 10.

cheers
Bob

-MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
depends on the loading conditions & assembly
an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
allowable in timber like ~100lbs
ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
cheers
Bob
I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I
never was.

I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being
cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.

Is that what that 800 number is?
Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
machine/test.



Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? Mounted
in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?

A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress &
mutlitply by .02

But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn
mower.

cheers
Bob


Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
world, but they still do the tests. :-)

If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a fixture that
fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it. Seems like a strange thing to
do when a nail would not normally be used that way. Do you recall the
circumstances under which the test was conducted?

Why not take two steel blocks of the same size. Drill a clearance
hole through each, offset about a 1/4". Place a nail through the
holes. Place both blocks in a vise and close until the nail
shears. Once you are sure of the set up, it should be fairly easy
to devise a means of measuring the force. I've not ever had a
need for the data short of meeting a particular structural rating
that an engineer designed and specified.


I do wish I had kept the drawing of that project. It required
nailing a series of 2x6 blocks onto existing 2x10 joists with a
set number of 10d common nails. The block was to be 1 foot long
as I recall with over 40 nails in it. I asked how he came up with
the numbers, etc; and expressed my concern that the board(s) would
shatter or split from the sheer number of shear nails. He was
worried about the forces (known and unknown) that he wanted to
overcome and not necessarily the limits of the material. We
arrived at a reasonable compromise that satisfied each of us. It
seems to me the compromise involved a longer 2x6, use of 16d, and
some predrilling. I don't believe the number of fasteners changed
much. I had offered using steel, bolts, etc. I think the main
reason not to change had to do with not wanting to
redraw/recalculate.

--
______________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)




"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...
J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
depends on the loading conditions & assembly
an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load)
number?
allowable in timber like ~100lbs
ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
cheers
Bob
I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything...
I
never was.

I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like
being
cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d
nail.

Is that what that 800 number is?
Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
machine/test.


Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber?
Mounted
in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?

A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another
poster's
calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress &
mutlitply by .02

But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a
test
machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be
used in
that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a
lawn
mower.

cheers
Bob

Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the
real
world, but they still do the tests. :-)

If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a
fixture that fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it.
Seems like a strange thing to do when a nail would not normally
be used that way. Do you recall the circumstances under which
the test was conducted?


I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob
says to try to make himself feel superior in some way.

I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had
some engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those
types of tests, I've been trying to ask them.

Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs
(Underwriters' Labs might be one example) where they take a
material way beyond its limits to see when it crack, shears,
pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?

Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this
happens.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in
life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

fftt wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:03 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
depends on the loading conditions & assembly
an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
allowable in timber like ~100lbs
ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
cheers
Bob
I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I never was.
I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being cut,
or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.
Is that what that 800 number is?
Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the machine/test.
Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? Mounted
in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?
A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress & mutlitply
by .02
But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn mower.
cheers
Bob
Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
world, but they still do the tests. :-)

--


There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real world, but they still do the tests. :-)

Back to your old behavior, I see .....writing nonsense & digging
holes.

The tests are done for a reason, to confirm or determine material
properties. To determine system performance.
Perhaps you could give an example as to one of these "tests".

You pulled a BS number out of your ass (or faulty memory) then
continued to insisted it was right & that it made sense.

You then switched to hoping your number was "close to right" .....at
least in "some" situation.
Even considering the number from the most optimistic & unrealistic
condition ....you're still off by a factor more than 10.

cheers
Bob


Get over yourself, Bob.
So every stress test done in the lab is a replication of a real life
application, huh?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
depends on the loading conditions & assembly
an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
allowable in timber like ~100lbs
ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
cheers
Bob
I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I
never was.

I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being
cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.

Is that what that 800 number is?
Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
machine/test.


Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? Mounted
in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?

A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress &
mutlitply by .02

But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn
mower.

cheers
Bob

Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
world, but they still do the tests. :-)

If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a fixture that
fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it. Seems like a strange thing to
do when a nail would not normally be used that way. Do you recall the
circumstances under which the test was conducted?


I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says to
try to make himself feel superior in some way.

I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
I've been trying to ask them.

Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters'
Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?

Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
depends on the loading conditions & assembly
an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
allowable in timber like ~100lbs
ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
cheers
Bob
I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I
never was.

I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being
cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.

Is that what that 800 number is?
Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
machine/test.


Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber?
Mounted in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?

A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another
poster's calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear
stress & mutlitply by .02

But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used
in that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn
mower.

cheers
Bob

Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
world, but they still do the tests. :-)

If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a fixture
that fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it. Seems like a
strange thing to do when a nail would not normally be used that way.
Do you recall the circumstances under which the test was conducted?


I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says
to try to make himself feel superior in some way.

I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
I've been trying to ask them.

Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs
(Underwriters' Labs might be one example) where they take a material
way beyond its limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart,
shatters, or whatever?

They don't "take it way beyond its limits", they determine what its limits
are.

And I've not just seen such tests, I've planned and monitored them and
analyzed the results. Never had occasion to do one on a nail in a fixture
intended to determine its shear strength though. I'ts not something that I
can imagine anybody wanting to do unless they were perhaps quality control
people in a nail factory or lawyers trying to prove that a batch of nails
was defective. In most engineering you don't care how strong the _fastener_
is, you care how strong the _joint_ is and to test that you make up sample
joints and test them.

Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.

No, for arguing about things like the definition of "shear".

J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
depends on the loading conditions & assembly
an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
allowable in timber like ~100lbs
ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
cheers
Bob
I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I
never was.

I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being
cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.

Is that what that 800 number is?
Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
machine/test.

Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber?
Mounted in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?

A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another
poster's calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear
stress & mutlitply by .02

But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used
in that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn
mower.

cheers
Bob

Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
world, but they still do the tests. :-)
If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a fixture
that fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it. Seems like a
strange thing to do when a nail would not normally be used that way.
Do you recall the circumstances under which the test was conducted?

I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says
to try to make himself feel superior in some way.

I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
I've been trying to ask them.

Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs
(Underwriters' Labs might be one example) where they take a material
way beyond its limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart,
shatters, or whatever?

They don't "take it way beyond its limits", they determine what its limits
are.


Wow. More semantics policing.
You couldn't take for granted that we were talking about the same thing?


And I've not just seen such tests, I've planned and monitored them and
analyzed the results. Never had occasion to do one on a nail in a fixture
intended to determine its shear strength though. I'ts not something that I
can imagine anybody wanting to do unless they were perhaps quality control
people in a nail factory or lawyers trying to prove that a batch of nails
was defective. In most engineering you don't care how strong the _fastener_
is, you care how strong the _joint_ is and to test that you make up sample
joints and test them.

Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.

No, for arguing about things like the definition of "shear".


I'll quote...

me:
There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
world, but they still do the tests. :-)
him:
Back to your old behavior, I see .....writing nonsense & digging
holes.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Oct 11, 12:22*pm, -MIKE- wrote:

I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says to
try to make himself feel superior in some way.

I honestly want to know what the real number is. *Since we had some
engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
I've been trying to ask them.

Oh, you mean like... Bob?

Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters'
Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?

Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.

Sheesh. Will you give it the **** up already? Don't you understand?
Bob IS one of the guys that did such testing for years. I first ran
into him probably close to ten years ago on
alt.building.construction. He knows his ****, and was pointing out
that you were mistaken about that number, as did many other people.

You're just getting twisted up over something YOU don't understand.
If you want an education, go get it - it's not someone else's job to
give it to you. DAGS "nail shear strength testing". BTW, do not be
mislead by that idiot's video on YouTube and Metacafe that shows him
swatting nails and screws and calling that a shear strength test.
Swatting them with a hammer is not a shear test (though it can be
indicative of the shear strength).

R

RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says to
try to make himself feel superior in some way.

I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
I've been trying to ask them.

Oh, you mean like... Bob?

Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters'
Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?

Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.

Sheesh. Will you give it the **** up already? Don't you understand?
Bob IS one of the guys that did such testing for years. I first ran
into him probably close to ten years ago on
alt.building.construction. He knows his ****, and was pointing out
that you were mistaken about that number, as did many other people.


I did ask him, and he went off on me out digging the hole further.
There's a pile-on mentality in here that cracks me up.



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Oct 11, 1:46*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says to
try to make himself feel superior in some way.

I honestly want to know what the real number is. *Since we had some
engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
I've been trying to ask them.

Oh, you mean like... Bob?

Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters'
Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?

Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.

Sheesh. *Will you give it the **** up already? *Don't you understand?
Bob IS one of the guys that did such testing for years. *I first ran
into him probably close to ten years ago on
alt.building.construction. *He knows his ****, and was pointing out
that you were mistaken about that number, as did many other people.

I did ask him, and he went off on me out digging the hole further.
There's a pile-on mentality in here that cracks me up.

Perhaps you were looking for a Stuart Smalley newsgroup...? I'll see
if I can help.
You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like
you!

You were still wrong about the 16000 lbs.

R

RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 11, 1:46 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says to
try to make himself feel superior in some way.
I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
I've been trying to ask them.
Oh, you mean like... Bob?
Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters'
Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?
Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.
Sheesh. Will you give it the **** up already? Don't you understand?
Bob IS one of the guys that did such testing for years. I first ran
into him probably close to ten years ago on
alt.building.construction. He knows his ****, and was pointing out
that you were mistaken about that number, as did many other people.
I did ask him, and he went off on me out digging the hole further.
There's a pile-on mentality in here that cracks me up.

Perhaps you were looking for a Stuart Smalley newsgroup...? I'll see
if I can help.
You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like
you!

You were still wrong about the 16000 lbs.

R

Great, I'm over that. I've been over that. I'm not the one who keeps
bringing it up.

What I'm interested in are the real numbers. I thought others might be,
too, but all you seem to be interested in is pointing out what an idiot
you think I am, which says much more about you than me.

I saw that Bob was an expert and asked about three times and got nothing
more than finger pointing.

I asked that other guy, Richk Structural Engineer, to explain his
numbers a little more.
Haven't heard from him, but maybe he'll add something after he reads it.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:22:47 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote: self justifying silliness.



OK, you win this weeks Robatoy Memorial I Won't Admit I'm Wrong Award.

A bronzed jointer guard will be presented to you at the next meeting.

Thank you for playing.




Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

-MIKE- wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
depends on the loading conditions & assembly
an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load)
number? allowable in timber like ~100lbs
ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
cheers
Bob
I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I
never was.

I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like
being cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a
16d nail.

Is that what that 800 number is?
Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
machine/test.

Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber?
Mounted in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?

A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another
poster's calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear
stress & mutlitply by .02

But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used
in that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a
lawn mower.

cheers
Bob

Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the
real world, but they still do the tests. :-)
If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a fixture
that fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it. Seems like a
strange thing to do when a nail would not normally be used that
way. Do you recall the circumstances under which the test was
conducted?

I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob
says to try to make himself feel superior in some way.

I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of
tests, I've been trying to ask them.

Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs
(Underwriters' Labs might be one example) where they take a material
way beyond its limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart,
shatters, or whatever?

They don't "take it way beyond its limits", they determine what its
limits are.


Wow. More semantics policing.
You couldn't take for granted that we were talking about the same
thing?

Nope, one thing I learned in many years of engineering is that when someone
is throwing around words as loosely as you do, its best to press for all the
precision that one can get out of them, otherwise they get very upset when
what was delivered was not what they wanted.

And I've not just seen such tests, I've planned and monitored them
and analyzed the results. Never had occasion to do one on a nail in
a fixture intended to determine its shear strength though. I'ts not
something that I can imagine anybody wanting to do unless they were
perhaps quality control people in a nail factory or lawyers trying
to prove that a batch of nails was defective. In most engineering
you don't care how strong the _fastener_ is, you care how strong the
_joint_ is and to test that you make up sample joints and test them.

Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.

No, for arguing about things like the definition of "shear".


I'll quote...

me:
There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
world, but they still do the tests. :-)
him:
Back to your old behavior, I see .....writing nonsense & digging
holes.

The sad thing is that you don't even try to recognize the hole you're
digging.

On Oct 11, 9:15*am, -MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:03 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
depends on the loading conditions & assembly
an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
allowable *in timber like ~100lbs
ultimate load in timber, probably *400lbs
ultimate *load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition */ *alloy; *maybe 800+ lbs
cheers
Bob
I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I never was.
I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being cut,
or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.
Is that what that 800 number is?
Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the machine/test.
Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? * Mounted
in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?
A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress & mutlitply
by .02
But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn mower..
cheers
Bob
Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
world, but they still do the tests. :-)

--

There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real world, but they still do the tests. :-) *

Back to your old behavior, I see .....writing nonsense & digging
holes.

The tests are done for a reason, to confirm or determine material
properties. *To determine system performance.
Perhaps you could give an example as to one of these "tests".

You pulled a BS number out of your ass (or faulty memory) then
continued to insisted it was right & that it made sense.

You then switched to hoping your number was "close to right" .....at
least in "some" situation.
Even considering the number from the most optimistic & unrealistic
condition ....you're still off by a factor more than 10.

cheers
Bob

Get over yourself, Bob.
So every stress test done in the lab is a replication of a real life
application, huh?

--

* -MIKE-

* "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
* * *--Elvin Jones *(1927-2004)
* --
*http://mikedrums.com
*
* ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply


Mike-

You continue to post unsubstantiated BS. back pedaling & back
filling as you go, changing the subject and obfuscating

On Oct 11, 9:22*am, -MIKE- wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
fftt wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
depends on the loading conditions & assembly
an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
allowable *in timber like ~100lbs
ultimate load in timber, probably *400lbs
ultimate *load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition */ *alloy; *maybe 800+ lbs
cheers
Bob
I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I
never was.

I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being
cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.

Is that what that 800 number is?
Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
machine/test.

Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? * Mounted
in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?

A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress &
mutlitply by .02

But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn
mower.

cheers
Bob

Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
world, but they still do the tests. :-)

If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a fixture that
fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it. *Seems like a strange thing to
do when a nail would not normally be used that way. *Do you recall the
circumstances under which the test was conducted?

I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says to
try to make himself feel superior in some way.

I honestly want to know what the real number is. *Since we had some
engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
I've been trying to ask them.

Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters'
Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?

Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.

--

* -MIKE-

* "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
* * *--Elvin Jones *(1927-2004)
* --
*http://mikedrums.com
*
* ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

I'm far from superior....... I come to this newsgroup to learn stuff
(as I assume most others do)

when people (like you) post unsupported & unsupportable claims it
reduces the value of this forum

you asked for info, people provide it (you disbelieved it) ....you
were asked for cites or examples & you provided none...just more hand
waving

On Oct 11, 11:22*am, -MIKE- wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 11, 1:46 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says to
try to make himself feel superior in some way.
I honestly want to know what the real number is. *Since we had some
engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
I've been trying to ask them.
Oh, you mean like... Bob?
Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters'
Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?
Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.
Sheesh. *Will you give it the **** up already? *Don't you understand?
Bob IS one of the guys that did such testing for years. *I first ran
into him probably close to ten years ago on
alt.building.construction. *He knows his ****, and was pointing out
that you were mistaken about that number, as did many other people.
I did ask him, and he went off on me out digging the hole further.
There's a pile-on mentality in here that cracks me up.

Perhaps you were looking for a Stuart Smalley newsgroup...? *I'll see
if I can help.
You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like
you!

You were still wrong about the 16000 lbs. *

R

Great, I'm over that. *I've been over that. *I'm not the one who keeps
bringing it up.

What I'm interested in are the real numbers. I thought others might be,
too, but all you seem to be interested in is pointing out what an idiot
you think I am, which says much more about you than me.

I saw that Bob was an expert and asked about three times and got nothing
more than finger pointing.

I asked that other guy, Richk Structural Engineer, to explain his
numbers a little more.
Haven't heard from him, but maybe he'll add something after he reads it.

--

* -MIKE-



Mike-

I sorry you're ****ed off. Lots of guys provided good comments & good
information

One of my later posts gave you range of answers

reposted he




depends on the loading conditions & assembly

an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?

allowable in timber like ~100lbs

ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs

ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs



I failed (fail) to see how this answer didn't satisfy your
questions.

Seems to me it covered all the bases, pretty much

except the 800+ lbs number, which was a bit imprecise & dependent on
alloy & heat treat.

But the truth be told, nails (in timber construction, where they are
mostly used) fail in bending not shear or combination with withdrawal.
I'm thinking of shear wall applications which are one of the few where
nailed connections are taken beyond the system yield point.

Your continuing to pursue the subject after this answer was
interpreted by me (perhaps incorrectly) that you were "shopping the
answer"
.......by changing the conditions until you got the answer you
wanted.

If I was wrong about that, my apologies.

Perhaps we just we use different language to describe this situation
and were talking "passed each other"

....unfortunately (for you) the language I use (or try to use) is that
agreed upon by engineering & construction pros.
The use of precise language in these situations is important otherwise
mis-communication occurs.

wrt to the "douche bag" comment...... I sometimes have that effect on
people but I still invited to my fair share of parties so I'm not too
worried.

cheers
Bob

I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
I've been trying to ask them.

Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters'
Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?

Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.

--

-MIKE-


I'm far from superior....... I come to this newsgroup to learn stuff
(as I assume most others do)

when people (like you) post unsupported & unsupportable claims it
reduces the value of this forum

you asked for info, people provide it (you disbelieved it) ....you
were asked for cites or examples & you provided none...just more hand
waving


When you entered the discussion, you made it apparent that you were an
expert who had done testing like that, and that I was way off.

I wrote, "Cool. Any idea what it can take?" That's me moving on.

You gave me numbers. I didn't "disbelieve" anything. I tried to clarify
what the tests were and wanted to start a discussion about lab tests
that are done to test materials until they break, not until they lose
their grip in wood.

I suggesting that tests are done on materials that go way beyond what
those materials will ever handle in real life application and you called
that "nonsense."

It's clear to me that you're only interested in telling me how wrong I am.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply